This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/51442] volatile bitfields broken on arm
- From: "bconoboy at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 01:49:25 +0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/51442] volatile bitfields broken on arm
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-51442-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51442
--- Comment #4 from Brendan Conoboy <bconoboy at gmail dot com> 2011-12-10 01:49:25 UTC ---
FYI, I've checked out svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_6-branch
revision 182172, run and rerun the complete testsuite before and after this
patch (As well as the patch Richard pointed at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01390/volatile-bitfields-1110.patch)
on an x86_64 host. The results are as follows:
objc, gfortran, libstdc++-v3, libjava, libmudflap, libffi, libgomp: identical
gcc: 2 new passes (These are from the testcase added by the second patch).
Otherwise identical.
To me this suggests there is very little risk in adding these patches to the
branch. Likewise, there is a great deal to be gained for ARM users.